export_land_report_dxf

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds export format (DXF), layout, and the bufferMeters query requirement. No contradiction with annotations; provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys key information (layout, buffer handling). It is not overly verbose but could be better structured with separate sentences for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main purpose and key parameter behavior. However, it omits output details (e.g., file path or binary) and does not fully explain the 'request info' component. Adequate but incomplete for a complex export tool without output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description repeats bufferMeters behavior and default but adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it exports a combined report (request info, land use plan, cadastral map) as a DXF file based on a parcel address, with specific layout details. This distinguishes it from siblings like export_cadastral_dxf (cadastral only) and those using PNU.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly guides usage by focusing on address-based export and instructs to ask for bufferMeters if unspecified. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs siblings or exclusion criteria (e.g., use _by_pnu if PNU is available).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.